I would be happy to oblige, my friend, but for reasons which are likely apparent in my most recent post, I will wait, for the moment, to begin such a project - for it is not unreasonable to think I would have difficulty getting very far before having to answer more allegations of 'unmanly' conduct, avoiding/ignoring the many points already mentioned, etc. I hope you will forgive me, as I think it wiser to wait for our host's response to my statements (as my most recent post of any kind of substance is no longer visible, having been deleted).

As for your question about Bp. Sanborn changing his opinion on this issue - it was, imo, crystal clear what you meant. Further, I was unable to ascertain any actual evidence that Bp. Sanborn has changed his position on this issue when I read the response to your query - at least not since adopting the position espoused in his well-known article (which he still posts, unaltered, on his own Catholic Restoration website).

Any relation to Paul Schofield, of A Man for All Seasons fame?

_________________"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."

Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:30 am

Tommy Short

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pmPosts: 84Location: USA

I must add that I too was surprised to hear that Bishop Sanborn had changed his mind on the "una cum" position, not that he hasn't changed his mind on other matters. I have not spoken with the Bishop for some 10 years, but at that time he most certainly still held tight to his belief. I am attempting to get in touch with him to find out exactly where he stands on this issue. I remain uncertain myself as to exactly when and where this news was born, but agreeing with the article in question by the Bishop, I feel compelled to find out his most recent thoughts. If I manage to succeed in hearing from him I will let you know.

Tommy

Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:54 am

Eamon Shea

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 amPosts: 72Location: USA

Tommy,

I presently live in my home state of FL (in the northeast), and go to Mass in Brooksville (central/southwest) every few weeks. I have the phone numbers of several people in Brooksville, including clerics, who would certainly know the answer to this question. I am sure they will get back to you when time permits, but if you think I can help in any way, please let me know. God speed.

_________________"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."

Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:05 am

Tommy Short

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pmPosts: 84Location: USA

"I presently live in my home state of FL (in the northeast), and go to Mass in Brooksville (central/southwest) every few weeks. I have the phone numbers of several people in Brooksville, including clerics, who would certainly know the answer to this question. I am sure they will get back to you when time permits, but if you think I can help in any way, please let me know. God speed."

Thanks Eamon, I assume that the good Bishop will get back with me as you suggest, but it may take some time. I have some friends who are also in contact with him so I would assume that in time there will be an answer. I admit that struggling with this issue many years ago, I found his article compelling, if not convincing. I am not obsessed with this issue, however I do concede it is one which I felt the need to make a decision on for my family. I do look forward to dicsussing this more with John, and as always, stand ready for correction where necessary.

Tommy

Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:55 am

Tommy Short

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pmPosts: 84Location: USA

As a note of confirmation to what Eamon has stated, a brief visit to Bishop Sanborn's web site does indeed show that his article on the "una cum" is posted as of this evening which spells out in great detail why he believes we should refrain from attending these masses. It would appear at first glance that perhaps the Bishop does still adhere to his original thesis in this regard. Time will tell.

Please not John, I am not trying to contradict you, just attempting to find out what is going on.

Tommy

Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:22 am

oremus

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:24 pmPosts: 75

There is a very simple problem with the una cum issue and that is that in Mass we are supposed to be praying the Mass ... and “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi” meaning the law of prayer establishes the law of belief.

Well by a Catholic praying in the very CANON of the MASS the "una cum" the name of someone that they believe is NOT the Pope and yet pray for the suspected anti-pope with the title of Pope then is that not a problem?

Now if the person has doubts about a Pope and they state their reservations to themself as they assist at Mass then they are reserving their belief and thus seems to me would be following the maxim “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi”.

Well by a Catholic praying in the very CANON of the MASS the "una cum" the name of someone that they believe is NOT the Pope and yet pray for the suspected anti-pope with the title of Pope then is that not a problem?

The point is that when a sede assists at a "una cum" mass, we do not ADD the name of the " pope" or local supposed ordinary in the Canon. At times I assist at SSPX masses while traveling, and while I am following along ( praying) with my missal, I do not mentioned bxvi in that part.

In Xto,

Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:17 am

oremus

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 1:24 pmPosts: 75

Vince,

I would say then that you are correctly
following the maxim “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi”.

Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:26 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Penrod Schofield wrote:

I meant changed his position on this question -- that the "Te Igitur" is not a prayer *for* the pope, but an expression of ecclesial union with him. I didn't mean he never changed his position in general. Of course, we have all changed our positions on something! I apologize for the misunderstanding.

My mistake - it seems I was not clear. But yes, I think he changed his position on the question of the "una cum" clause and what it means. First, he published Fr. Belmont's article, which asserted one thing; then he published his own article, which conceded the point to "F.X. Lamouroux."

This was how I tried to express it in my post above:

John Lane wrote:

Fr. Sanborn also published this response, and provided a further response himself, in which he conceded that the central theme of Fr. Belmont’s article, which was that the “una cum” clause is an expression of union with the pope in offering the Mass (viz. “I offer this Mass in union with the pope, N.”) was incorrect. Instead, as all are now clear, the prayer is for the pope (viz. “I offer this Mass for the Church … and also for the pope, N.”). Fr. Sanborn, however, provided an alternative reason for avoiding such Masses.

_________________In Christ our King.

Last edited by Admin on Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:05 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Tommy Short wrote:

I must add that I too was surprised to hear that Bishop Sanborn had changed his mind on the "una cum" position, ...

Dear Tommy,

No, he has not changed his mind on the "una cum" position. I was writing only about the meaning of that "una cum" clause. Sorry, obviously I was not clear.

But I would like somebody who is in touch with him to show him what I wrote and get his comments. I used to be in regular contact with him, but at some point after I disagreed with him he stopped answering my mail.

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:09 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Here is Bishop Sanborn's (later) explanation of the meaning of the "una cum" clause.

Bishop Sanborn wrote:

Import of the Una Cum Phrase

To my knowledge, there are three differing opinions of how this phrase should be understood. The first is to take una as an adjective, modifying Ecclesia, thus rendering the meaning to be “one with” or “united with.” The basis for this opinion is the fact that the Roman Pontiff is the principle of unity of the Catholic Church as a whole, and the local bishop the principle of unity of the particular Church. The second is to take una as an adverb modifying offerimus. “We offer...together with etc.” The reason for this opinion is that the Mass is an ecclesial act, offered not merely by a particular priest, but by the whole Church, in the name of which the priest is functioning. Since the Roman Pontiff is the head and principle of unity of the whole Church, it is fitting that his name be mentioned as the principal offerer. The third interpretation is to take the una cum phrase as an appositional link with Ecclesia, by which it would mean essentially including: “...which we offer Thee for Thy holy Catholic Church, which includes...”

Which is the correct way to accept una cum? I think that the third way is correct. Convincing proof to me is the fact that in medieval times, the name of the king was often inserted in this place, as well as that of the pope and bishop, which name is incompatible with the first two meanings of una cum, but not with the third. For the king is neither the principle of unity of the Church, nor is he in any way a principal or extraordinary offerer of the Mass. In these matters, he does not differ from the peasant in the pew. He is, however, a prominent member of the Mystical Body, as are pope and bishop, and does deserve special mention as such in the Mass and at other times in the sacred liturgy. The una cum phrase also appears in the Exsultet of Holy Saturday where the names of the pope and local bishop are to be inserted and, prior to 1918, the name of the Austrian Emperor. In this context the names are clearly there as prominent members of the Mystical Body.

Such a conclusion, however, does not deny the fact that the Roman Pontiff is the principle of unity of the Roman Catholic Church, nor that the Mass is an ecclesial act. To the contrary, both of these truths must be asserted about both the Church and the Mass.

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:17 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Eamon Shea wrote:

Now it is "all or none - immediately"? I have limited time during the work-week to use for such purposes - I am simply not able to get to them all immediately (and I appreciate the patience of those who may have asked a question to which I have not yet responded). I am doing what I can with the time I have (and I fully intend to get to each and every question). We are not in some 'big hurry' here, are we?

...

I am not ignoring them, John. Among all the alleged 'questions and objections' I have not responded to, let us settle upon ONE of them and explicitly hammer out what it is, so that I may focus on it without being accused of unmanfully ignoring the other ones. Then, we can do so regarding another point, etc.

Dear Eamon,

My perception is that you have commented on numerous threads, with great frequency, so that I felt that it was appropriate to ask you to slow down and not be in such a hurry to sort every issue out. You may recall that comment.

There is no suggestion on my part that you do anything “immediately” or in any timely way. I am more than content to hear from you once a week or once a month. The issue is not time, but substance.

As you know, I asked you a few days ago not to comment on any thread but this one. I have now also asked you not to proceed with putting additional arguments on the table until you have dealt with the one you placed there to begin with, and which at least two people have responded to, but which you appear not to consider demands further treatment.

Now, it may be that you think that Mr. Daly, for example, is simply wrong. And you may consider that you are thereby free to proceed with convincing your audience by adding new material which seems to you to add to the case. Nothing could be further from the truth. You are obliged to address the arguments against your claims properly and soberly. If instead you wish to brush past them and simply paste in large chunks from Bishop Sanborn, for example, then you are wasting the time of all of us. You would be wasting your time and your readers’ time, because they can read Bishop Sanborn without your interjections and thus stand a better chance of being convinced by him. And you are wasting Mr. Daly’s time, and that of many others of similar mind, because we already see why Bishop Sanborn is wrong. In fact, if you won’t take our objections seriously, then you have no business here, because you are in fact only treating this forum as a publishing system for putting forth your views, and that is not its purpose. You can do that on your own Web site, or on Fisheaters, for example.

So that there can be no further misunderstanding, please consider this carefully, for this is my view of the situation and I will continue to moderate the discussion in accord with this view.

As Mr. Schofield has pointed out, you are making a very serious claim directly affecting probably the majority of sedevacantist traditional Catholics, and indirectly all traditional Catholics, and you are gravely obliged to prove that it is strictly true. You are claiming that their assistance at Holy Mass is wrong, and that they should cease doing so. In your view, unless they can find one of those relatively rare Masses in which the priest does not mention Benedict’s name as pope, they ought to stay home alone and therefore separated from our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, as they are customarily united with Him presently. Let’s be clear about what is at stake here, so that the necessary gravity can be given to the points at issue.

This claim of yours originated many years after the traditional Catholic resistance to Vatican II was well established, and it was originated by Fr. Guerard des Lauriers, essentially as part of his novel theory, the Cassiciacum Thesis. So much is it true that this position was novel, that until after the year 2000 it does not appear more than one or two non-Guerardian priests had adopted it, and even the Guerardians in general refused to condemn those who assisted at such Masses when there was no other available and interiorly dissociated themselves from the unacceptable aspect.

This circumstance is emphasized, not to argue that the majority must be right, but merely to point out an additional reason why it is incumbent upon you to prove your case.

Now, the first plank of your position, as presented by you at the beginning of this thread, appears to be the following claim:

Eamon Shea wrote:

Although we may not utter a single word with our mouths while at Mass, do we not utter each and every one with our hearts, in union with the man who is uttering them with his mouth?

Your response effectively ignored his arguments. You are entitled to think of Mr. Daly as unworthy of a serious answer; you are not entitled to do that here. You can do that anywhere else you like, without any lack of charity or justice. But if you do it here, you make a mockery of the forum.

By the way, I say “relatively rare” Masses because there are approximately four hundred SSPX priests offering Holy Mass, and most of those include the name of Benedict in the Canon. In addition to these there are numerous “independents” who are non-sedevacantist. On the other hand, the sedevacantist and Guerardian clergy would total something in the region of seventy-five priests, and perhaps significantly fewer than that.

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:47 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Eamon Shea wrote:

Public and audible are not to be equated, although I can understand that one might think so.

Dear Vince,

Yes, your instincts are sound - the silent recitation of the Canon does signify that the Faithful are not offering those prayers directly, but rather the priest is offering them.

"The silent recitation of the Canon betokens the consecration and sacrificial act to be an exclusively priestly function. ... The silent recitation of the Canon is in contrast to the loud recitation of the preceding prayers. Whereas the loud tone of voice invites those present to join with the priest, and reminds them that the prayers are said in common, the silent recitation appropriately indicates that here is a mystery, which the consecrated priest alone can accomplish, not the people." (Rev. N. Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, pp. 623, 624.)

In other words, Gihr is saying quite directly that this prayer (indeed, the whole Canon) is not something we can be truly said to participate in, because it is per se the act of a priest. And we aren't priests. St. Thomas says the same thing, which is where Gihr got the idea. See below, where St. Thomas contrasts the silent prayers with those which the people are (silently) joining in with (i.e. the prayers outside the Canon).

Quote:

S. Th. III, Q 83, Art. 4, ad 6. As was said above (ad 3), those things are mentioned in this sacrament which belong to the entire Church; and consequently some things which refer to the people are sung by the choir, and same of these words are all sung by the choir, as though inspiring the entire people with them; and there are other words which the priest begins and the people take up, the priest then acting as in the person of God; to show that the things they denote have come to the people through Divine revelation, such as faith and heavenly glory; and therefore the priest intones the "Creed" and the "Gloria in excelsis Deo." Other words are uttered by the ministers, such as the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, as a sign that this doctrine was announced to the peoples through ministers sent by God. And there are other words which the priest alone recites, namely, such as belong to his personal office, "that he may offer up gifts and prayers for the people" (Hebrews 5:1). Some of these, however, he says aloud, namely, such as are common to priest and people alike, such as the "common prayers"; other words, however, belong to the priest alone, such as the oblation and the consecration; consequently, the prayers that are said in connection with these have to be said by the priest in secret. Nevertheless, in both he calls the people to attention by saying: "The Lord be with you," and he waits for them to assent by saying "Amen." And therefore before the secret prayers he says aloud, "The Lord be with you," and he concludes, "For ever and ever." Or the priest secretly pronounces some of the words as a token that regarding Christ's Passion the disciples acknowledged Him only in secret.

This is why Bishop Sanborn, who is honest and intelligent, goes a round-about way to his conclusion that there is something wrong with the Mass of a priest who mentions an undeclared heretic in the Canon. He can't argue that we directly cooperate in these prayers. Instead, he erects his (he supposes) proofs that the mistaken identification of the heresiarch as pope somehow places the Mass itself as an act outside the Church (even though he admits that the person acting is within the Church!), and then states that "participation in worship is consent to the worship." Which it is. Unfortunately for him, or fortunately for the unity of the Church and the salvation of souls, the foundation of his argument has not been established.

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:40 am

Tommy Short

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pmPosts: 84Location: USA

Here is Bishop Sanborn's (later) explanation of the meaning of the "una cum" clause

John, correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe the above quote and subsequent explanation provided is right from the article of 1993, where Bishop Sanborm emphatically states that Catholics must not attend the una cum mass. Is that your understanding as well?

Tommy

Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:06 pm

Robert Bastaja

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pmPosts: 515

I am wondering if priests (SSPX or Independent) who do say Mass "una cum" Benedict XVI...do they also mention the name of the local diocesan Bishop?

One independent priest I know who says the Traditional Mass prays publicly (just before Mass starts) with the congregation (he asks us to kneel for these prayers) for “Pope Benedict XVI and all Traditional Priests and Bishops”. I always thought he must be praying for the conversion of Benedict as his words seem to imply that he does not either recognize or pray for the local Bishop. I don’t question his orthodoxy but his actions in this regard seem somewhat illogical to me.

Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:45 pm

Mike

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pmPosts: 483

I think a point to add to this discussion is that there may be other reasons that one may choose to stop attending a Mass center in union with the false claimant. This happened in my life, in a local church. There was a "sedevacantist" priest who left the church, and the new priest that replaced him along with the board of directors "declared war" on the sedevacantists. They hung a large picture of John Paul II over the altar, the priest gave sermons about how we must be loyal to the John Paul II, and now Benedict, articles were published in the bulletin to the same effect, etc.

Due to these hostile actions I withdrew from the parish, but it was never due to the Una Cum issue, but due to the scandal of caused by the actions mentioned above. For me the pinciple is clear, the Mass is in union with the Church, una cum or not, but we must also defend our family from scandal if that arises.

My general feeling is that most SSPX masses are "safe." Many are reverent, and there is no hint about a false loyalty to Benedict. There are also many independent priests in the same category.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike

Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:09 pm

Gesta Dei Per Francos

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 3:16 pmPosts: 7

Robert Bastaja wrote:

I am wondering if priests (SSPX or Independent) who do say Mass "una cum" Benedict XVI...do they also mention the name of the local diocesan Bishop?

Yes, they do.

However, if you go to Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet in Paris (SSPX's headquarters), one can find a priest who is for the Guerard des Lauriers thesis. I was quite amazed when I discovered it. Going for confession, I told him that I was sedevacantist. He told me that it's not a problem (and I understood the reason after a small discussion we had after confession) but warned me that I should be careful with some other SSPX's priests if I wanted to receive the sacrament.
About another priest who left the SSPX some years ago : when discussing with Bishop Fellay about the "pope" (JPII at that time), Bishop Fellay told him that he could privately think what he wants but must not talk about it in public. That means that you can be a sedevacantist and inside the SSPX as long as you keep silent on that topic.

H.

Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:38 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Tommy Short wrote:

Here is Bishop Sanborn's (later) explanation of the meaning of the "una cum" clause

John, correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe the above quote and subsequent explanation provided is right from the article of 1993, where Bishop Sanborm emphatically states that Catholics must not attend the una cum mass. Is that your understanding as well?

Tommy

Almost. It is from the 1996 article, I believe. The 1993 version was subjected to a little rigorous criticism by one rather cheeky layman, and even though no admissions were made, a new version appeared a little while later.

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:45 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Mike wrote:

I think a point to add to this discussion is that there may be other reasons that one may choose to stop attending a Mass center in union with the false claimant. This happened in my life, in a local church. There was a "sedevacantist" priest who left the church, and the new priest that replaced him along with the board of directors "declared war" on the sedevacantists. They hung a large picture of John Paul II over the altar, the priest gave sermons about how we must be loyal to the John Paul II, and now Benedict, articles were published in the bulletin to the same effect, etc.

Due to these hostile actions I withdrew from the parish, but it was never due to the Una Cum issue, but due to the scandal of caused by the actions mentioned above. For me the pinciple is clear, the Mass is in union with the Church, una cum or not, but we must also defend our family from scandal if that arises.

My general feeling is that most SSPX masses are "safe." Many are reverent, and there is no hint about a false loyalty to Benedict. There are also many independent priests in the same category.

Yours in JMJ,

Mike

For what it is worth, I agree with all of this.

_________________In Christ our King.

Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:46 pm

John Daly

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 amPosts: 176

I lost touch with this thread for some days as I wasn't able to follow the forum and by the time I got back the thread had become so bulky it was off-putting to try and digest it all. However I have now tried to catch up and I'd just like to make sure I haven't missed anything. Hence the following question:

It was claimed that a layman assisting at Mass necessarily consents to whatever the priest says at the altar. And it was claimed that if the priest is in communion with Benedict XVI, the layman in communion with the priest is necessarily in communion with Benedict XVI too.

Both of those claims were challenged and, if I have not missed anything, those who made them have preferred to change their grounds thereby tacitly admitting that neither claim can be substantiated.

Is that right, or is anyone still claiming to have true proof from logic or authority that one or other of those claims is in fact true?

John

PS This in no way pre-judges the lawfulness of assisting at una cum Masses. A conclusion may still be true even though the first arguments scraped together to justify it do not work, but it is only fair to give those first arguments a decent burial and publish their obituary before moving on to others.

Wow, my first post on this great forum! Thanks so much for setting it up John, I watched your plight as Aquinian on AngelQueen, and was banned when I criticized the Site Admin for prohibiting the topic of sedevacantism which is of vital importance but allowing the topic of feeneyism! Not to mention the horridly rude "Bleep" of sede anything. But anyway....

John Lane wrote:

So, which law prohibits the mention of a heretic in the Canon of Holy Mass, prior to any public judgement of his status?

An official decree from the Church on matters such as this is just a reflection of reality. It is not declaring him excommunicated, it is just making that public and indisputable fact. So if Church decrees are just a reflection of reality and the reality is Benedict XVI is not the pope, then should we not try to apply the correct norms that the Church would if she had her teaching authority? We all know Fr.Ratzinger is a false pope. If it is wrong to mention his name in the Mass when he is publicly declared excommunicated by Holy Church then it is wrong to mention his name in the canon of the Mass when he is outside the Mystical Body, because it is impossible for an official declaration of this fact to be issued any time soon. By the way, I live in Victoria, Australia so I know the hardship that it is to be deprived of the sacraments. After all in Australia I might be able to attend Mass once every 3 or 4 months (when the CMRI conducts one of its missions). But Our Lady said that in the end the brown scapular and the rosary will save souls, not the Mass. Japans catholics lasted 200 years without the sacraments, only a rosary and missal. Akin to sedevacantists in Australia and the other sedevacantists living on the contenants other then America and Europe.

_________________In Christ Our Lord
Dylan

Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:02 am

John Daly

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 amPosts: 176

Reply to Dylan

Welcome to the forum, Dylan.

I have read your argument and I understand it because I used to believe much the same myself. However, I no longer believe it and I’d like to explain why.

You say:

Quote:

An official decree from the Church on matters such as this is just a reflection of reality. It is not declaring him excommunicated, it is just making that public and indisputable fact. So if Church decrees are just a reflection of reality and the reality is Benedict XVI is not the pope, then should we not try to apply the correct norms that the Church would if she had her teaching authority?

First, let’s express ourselves accurately. When you say “it is not declaring him excommunicated” you surely mean, “it is not making him excommunicated”. If the Church one day declares that Ratzinger was a heretic, excommunicated and not a legitimate pope this will precisely be what is called a “declaratory sentence”, i.e. making publicly known what was already the case.

Once the expression is corrected, we are agreed that far.

The next point we also agree on: when the Church has laid down a general law, such as that public heretics lose their offices automatically, we do not have to wait for her to make a public declaration that a given person has incurred the effects of this canon. If we know that a man is a public heretic, we know that he has no office in the Church. So far, so good.

Your next point is that since Church declarations are merely making publicly known what was already true, we should in all respects act as if those declarations were already made.

There, you go astray. There are two reasons why this is wrong. The first is that when the Church declares someone to have incurred excommunication or loss of office, though her declaration does not make this the truth, it does radically alter the status of that truth. And some consequences flow from the officially declared status of that truth which would not flow from the fact as long as it was not officially declared.

The second flaw in your inference is your assumption that you know in advance all the relevant details of what the Church’s declaration would include if she made it.

Let’s look at these two flaws in more detail.

If a heretic is elected pope, the election is null. He is not pope. But some Catholics will think that he is pope. It is important to try to disabuse them of their error. But they do not become schismatics for failing to understand. That is why Pope Paul IV’s Cum Ex Apostolatus speaks of the right, rather than the duty, to withdraw from the intruder. The truth that the man is not pope is already true but it is not yet a truth officially pronounced by the only competent authority, the Church herself.

Quite different is the case of a false pope who rises up against a true, certain and publicly known pope. In this case the true pope will probably condemn the other and the act of adhering to the other will be an act of schism. You see the difference?

Long ago the Church had a law whereby those who communicated with the excommunicated were themselves excommunicated. Each excommunication might be incurred automatically. This led to a nightmare situation at the time of the Great Western Schism when it was uncertain who was the true pope and some thought that those who followed the wrong pope were schismatics and others didn’t. Consequently the first significant act of the reconstituted authority, Pope Martin V, at the end of the schism, was to promulgate a very important decree called “Ad Evitanda Scandala”. This decree is still in force today and it ends definitely any question that someone could incur excommunication by failing to take account of the excommunicated status of another person whose excommunication has not been officially declared. I shall be posting the full text of this decree on the “communicatio in sacris” thread.

Perhaps one of the most disastrous effects of the erroneous positions of the SSPX is to encourage those who see them to be errors to assume that whatever contradicts those errors is true. But an error can be opposed to other errors as well as to truth. SSPX supporters often claim that heretics do not lose their offices until they have been warned and condemned. That we know to be false. Against that error, some are saying: from the moment he is a public heretic all is exactly as if he had already been condemned. That is also an error. The intermediate position is the one supported by authority: The act of public heresy deprives the miscreant of office and enables those who notice to withdraw from him, but it does not entail any penalisation of those who fail to notice or any breach of communion between those Catholics who have noticed and those who haven’t.

I hope that’s clear. Now let’s go on to the second flaw. You write:

Quote:

should we not try to apply the correct norms that the Church would if she had her teaching authority

The hypothesis is rather paradoxical. If the Church had a pope, the Holy See would not be vacant and the situation would be altered in a thousand respects. But let us struggle to envisage your hypothesis. Suppose it were tomorrow discovered that two old validly named cardinals whom we thought to be dead were in fact alive. Suppose they elected a new and valid pope, while Ratzinger continued his heresy-mongering in the Vatican. What would happen?

To you it seems clear that the new pope would immediately order all those who recognized him to refrain on pain of mortal sin from assisting at valid Tridentine Masses in which his rival was named and that we should therefore anticipate this decision as if it were already made. However, to me, it is not certain at all that he would do anything of the sort. In fact I even think it possible he might issue a decree saying exactly the opposite. I realise you will find this very difficult to believe, but I am not merely trying to be perverse. I am fairly well qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

But in any event, what possible proof is there that we should act as if a certain order had been given by a true pope when it hasn’t and when half of the problem we are considering is the fact that we have no true pope?

Everyone knows that only popes should be named as pope in the Canon of the Mass. The question is what attitude to take when a non-pope, heretic or excommunicate or what you will is named by a priest because he doesn’t know that the man isn’t what he claims to be. Is it forbidden to assist? No one is even pretending that any law exists to that effect as long as his status has not been declared by due authority.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand exactly why many sedevacantist priests don’t want their faithful to go to the Masses of local Benedict-following priests and are hunting for theological proof to make their understandable preference into a duty. The danger of perversion is often real. The duty of bearing public witness to grave truth is also real. Loyalty to priests who have made immense sacrifices for the truth and who are daily calumniated is also a factor. That is why these motives should be put forward frankly and discussed, not hidden behind a barrage of weak pseudo-theological arguments which is all we are being offered so far.

May the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus unite all minds in truth and all hearts in charity.

John

Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:38 pm

Robert Bastaja

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pmPosts: 515

John Daly wrote:

"Don’t get me wrong. I understand exactly why many sedevacantist priests don’t want their faithful to go to the Masses of local Benedict-following priests and are hunting for theological proof to make their understandable preference into a duty. The danger of perversion is often real. The duty of bearing public witness to grave truth is also real. Loyalty to priests who have made immense sacrifices for the truth and who are daily calumniated is also a factor. That is why these motives should be put forward frankly and discussed, not hidden behind a barrage of weak pseudo-theological arguments which is all we are being offered so far.”

I happen to agree with the above. If truth is what is truly desired here then motives should be truly and clearly expressed. Along these lines, I do also wonder about the motives of those who include the names of Benedict XVI and New Order diocesan Bishops in their Masses.

I realize that some just believe they are correct in doing so because they believe Benedict XVI is a valid Pope and their diocese is validly headed by Bishop X; but is this the exception or the rule? If it is not the rule then what are the motivations of the others?

With respect to the traditionalist laity, there does seem to be a need (in some places more than others of course) to let everyone know that “we recognize the Pope here”...but curiously, no mention is made of the local diocesan Bishop. It is as if the laity has absolutely no problem accepting the fact that their local “Bishop” need not be recognized. They cannot, however, accept that the “Pope” need not be recognized as well.

Thanks for your reply Mr. Daly, you really do live up to your reputation as a man of profound knowledge.

John Daly wrote:

To you it seems clear that the new pope would immediately order all those who recognized him to refrain on pain of mortal sin from assisting at valid Tridentine Masses in which his rival was named and that we should therefore anticipate this decision as if it were already made. However, to me, it is not certain at all that he would do anything of the sort. In fact I even think it possible he might issue a decree saying exactly the opposite. I realise you will find this very difficult to believe, but I am not merely trying to be perverse. I am fairly well qualified to have an opinion on the subject.

That is not what my point was at all. My point is that a decree of excommunication does not excommunicate that person, but only makes it publicly known and official. You respond by basicaly saying that different consequences are drawn from the different status of those outside the Church, in this case it is the fact that Benedict XVI is excommunicated but not declared so by a legitimate authority.I aggree that canon law does not prohibit the naming of a heretic in the Mass who has not been declared as such. But I stand by what I said, law is only a reflection of reality, Benedict XVI is still outside the Church and we should apply the norms of Holy Church to this situation. Normaly it is forbidden to name a heretic in the Mass because of the certitude we have from the Holy See. However in these times that certitude is no longer a possibility, but I and you have moral certitude. We cannot force others to act on our certitude, but we should act on it, and it is sinful to assist at such a Mass when we are sure that it is offered in union with a false church and false pope. Would you attend the Mass of an eastern rite priest who decided to say the name of the current orthodox patraich in the canon? Holy Church has never judged on this man either, but we both know that he is not a catholic and to name him as such would be an offence to God.# Benedict XVI is outside the Church# A declaratory sentence does not make one excommunicated- it is objective truth that he is outside the Church both before and after any judgment# The fact that he is outside the Church remains the same both before and after judgement # We should apply to norms and practices of Holy Church whenever we can# It is the norm of Holy Church to forbid the naming of a pertinent Heretic in the Mass

John Daly wrote:

But in any event, what possible proof is there that we should act as if a certain order had been given by a true pope when it hasn’t and when half of the problem we are considering is the fact that we have no true pope?

The proof? That it is the practice of the Church to omit the names of heretics and schismatics in the canon of the Mass. That Benedict XVI is a heretic now and still will be if a judgment is made on him. That it is an offence against God and his Church to say that a heretic and apostate is the pillar of unity for the mystical body of Christ. To call this apostate an "orthodox defender and teacher of the faith" and to lie in the most solemn of acts on earth. To actively participate in worship is to give consent to it.

I am only young, I cannot remember the election of John Paul II. But even I can sense their is something evil and blasphemous about lieing in the mass, or consenting to such an act.

_________________In Christ Our Lord
Dylan

Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:23 am

John Daly

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 amPosts: 176

Misses the point

Dear Dylan,

This discussion is not about whether Benedict XVI should be named as pope in the Canon. He shouldn't be, because he isn't one. That is something all sedevacantists are agreed on. But some traditional Catholic priests do not realise that Benedict XVI is not pope, so they name him in the Canon. We're discussing whether it is definitely and in all circumstances a sin to go to the Mass of these priests. Clear?

Now look again at your own summary of your case and you will see that it actually doesn't touch that subject at all:

Quote:

# Benedict XVI is outside the Church # A declaratory sentence does not make one excommunicated- it is objective truth that he is outside the Church both before and after any judgment # The fact that he is outside the Church remains the same both before and after judgement # We should apply to norms and practices of Holy Church whenever we can # It is the norm of Holy Church to forbid the naming of a pertinent Heretic in the Mass

Your arguments concern whether or not Benedict XVI should be named as pope in the Canon. But no one who believes he isn't pope is in favour of naming him in the Canon.

On the question of going to Masses in which he is mistakenly named in the Canon I cannot see any argument, real or apparent in your post except the claim that "to actively participate in worship is to give consent to it".

You presumably mean that anyone going to a Mass in which Benedict is named is consenting to his being named. But that is precisely what you have to prove, young man. Eamon Shea wheeled out that claim early on in this thread and, challenged to justify it, swiftly changed the subject.

Go back to the end of page 1 and the beginning of page 2 of this thread and you can see my three posts to Eamon showing the logical lacunae waiting to be filled in. They’re still waiting.

Please understand Dylan that this is a very grave subject. It calls for very serious treatment. Rigorous logic is needed if you want to prove that hundreds of Catholic families must deprive themselves of the sacraments the actual reception of which, if they are available, is necessary for salvation.

Could you also make an effort to improve your English? Typos or malapropisms are so common in your posts that it is sometimes hard to follow you. Crystal clarity of thought and expression is going to be needed to make progress on this issue.

Could you also make an effort to improve your English? Typos or malapropisms are so common in your posts that it is sometimes hard to follow you. Crystal clarity of thought and expression is going to be needed to make progress on this issue.

This is uncalled for. It takes away from the respect and warm atmosphere that should prevail when speaking about touchy subjects like this, I was going to send you a private message concerning this comment but the site admin has disallowed this feature.
But yes I will slow down when I type so as not to make any errors.
I tried to make this a friendly exchange by complementing you as a man of profound knowledge, sadly it seems that any chances of a friendly exchange have flown out the window.

_________________In Christ Our Lord
Dylan

Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:49 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Misses the point

Dylan Byrne wrote:

I tried to make this a friendly exchange by complementing you as a man of profound knowledge, sadly it seems that any chances of a friendly exchange have flown out the window.

Dear Dylan,

Please don't be offended by that. There was nothing offensive in it - merely an attempt to bring to your attention a problem of communication. When you have six or seven children you'll understand the need to write rapidly.

As for the chances of future friendly exchange, you could always continue to run your own race your own way. Seriously, behave the way you believe you are bound to behave, and forgive others for whatever they seem to lack.

I tried to make this a friendly exchange by complementing you as a man of profound knowledge, sadly it seems that any chances of a friendly exchange have flown out the window.

Dear Dylan,

Please don't be offended by that. There was nothing offensive in it - merely an attempt to bring to your attention a problem of communication. When you have six or seven children you'll understand the need to write rapidly.

As for the chances of future friendly exchange, you could always continue to run your own race your own way. Seriously, behave the way you believe you are bound to behave, and forgive others for whatever they seem to lack.

Dear John

Ofcourse, stupidity on my part! What I wrote was on the "spur of the moment". I took Mr. Daly's comment to be an attempt of public mockery and responded in a rash and stupid way! I hope by the time its morning in France Mr. Daly understands. Apologizing in advance.

_________________In Christ Our Lord
Dylan

Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:22 am

John Daly

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 amPosts: 176

Apology accepted

Apology accepted, Dylan, of course.

But please let me point out, for instance, that you wrote "a pertinent heretic" for "pertinacious heretic" and several other fairly big typos which can genuinely make it hard to follow.

I'm emphasising that yours were whoppers because I am always making typos myself but I hope they're smaller. Here in France I am using a keyboard whose top line begins AZERTY instead of QWERTY!

Also I have the impression that you're young enough for me still to be able to point out one or two things like that which might give offence to an adult.

Let's remember that this is not an idle chat forum and that the subject is a serious one. Correct English goes with correct thought and sloppy English with sloppy thought. I want in the nicest possible way to insist on logical rigour and that's going to mean some grammar too. It's not that I am a crusty pedant. It's that this subject of assisting at a Mass in which the priest states his conviction that Benedict XVI is pope is precisely one on which there are several arguments that might look solid on an impressionistic level but which do not in fact work out when reduced to formal expression.

makes interesting reading. It is by Father Sanborn, and is a lengthy analysis of why it is illicit to attend Una Cum Masses. I'm glad there is an opportunity on this forum to provide both sides of the debate, so I hope you all find it interesting and worth a look, even if you ultimately conclude Father Sanborn is wrong.

Regnum

Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:18 pm

Eamon Shea

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 amPosts: 72Location: USA

John Lane wrote:

My immediate reaction is that you must be under the illusion that the "una cum" clause is something other than a prayer for the pope. The idea that it expresses the idea that the Mass is offered "in union with" the pope (or the heretic, in this case). But that idea has long been exploded and even Bishop Sanborn explicitly disavows it now.

Let us give Dylan a break, shall we? The second 'sentence' above, from our learned host, is not even a complete sentence. It is a sentence fragment. As far as I can tell, looking at the screen as I make this post, there are no spelling or grammar aids on this forum. Thanks for taking the liberty to alter my signature, John.

It would seem pointless to answer the previous questions and objections at the moment, as I have no confidence that my replies will be left in tact, or will remain on the board for more than a short while (especially if they attack a central point of your thesis - such as the 'merely intercessory prayer' bull-dust). The post that was deleted before had exaclty zero words from Bp. Sanborn, yet you mention his name when referring to the post. Why? Is Pope Benedict XIV's Ex Quo inadmissible as a source?

_________________"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."

Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:09 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Eamon Shea wrote:

Let us give Dylan a break, shall we? The second 'sentence' above, from our learned host, is not even a complete sentence. It is a sentence fragment.

That is true. It was employed as a rhetorical device to add punch. And judging by the fact that you have selected it for criticism, I suspect that it succeeded.

Dylan doesn't need a break. He's a big fellow. And if he isn't, he ought not to be telling adults what to believe about controverted matters. Frankly, I think your request that we give him quarter displays less respect for him than we have.

Eamon Shea wrote:

Thanks for taking the liberty to alter my signature, John.

Eamon, please try and be just. I edited out the link to your Web site, and that is all.

Eamon Shea wrote:

It would seem pointless to answer the previous questions and objections at the moment, as I have no confidence that my replies will be left in tact, or will remain on the board for more than a short while (especially if they attack a central point of your thesis - such as the 'merely intercessory prayer' bull-dust). The post that was deleted before had exaclty zero words from Bp. Sanborn, yet you mention his name when referring to the post. Why? Is Pope Benedict XIV's Ex Quo inadmissible as a source?

No, feel free to quote Benedict XIV on the fact that the "una cum" clause is an intercessory prayer. If you can find him teaching that the prayer is not intercessory, but rather the expression of "co-offering" or some other novelty, feel free to quote that too. But he doesn't teach that, as you know. Nor does he teach that the Mass is offered primarily by the Church, which is the Scotist position against that of St. Thomas Aquinas; nor does he teach that the Mass offered by a Catholic priest is necessarily offered by whatever sect the man named as pope in the Te igitur happens to belong to. Frankly, that theory of Bishop Sanborn's is weird. Which is why he can find not even ONE authority for it, not even a Scotist.

Eamon, your post that was deleted was not deleted because it was disputed. It was deleted to force you to answer the arguments. I saved your post and was intending to email it to you to save you re-writing it, after you dealt with what is on the table. Now, I've just forwarded it to you. If and when you answer the arguments already on foot, you can re-post it.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:03 am

Linda

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:34 pmPosts: 89Location: Griffin, GA

Consider that we Catholics are in the "Good Friday" of The Church. (This is from Fr. Roy Randolph (deceased))

He said: "WHERE WAS PETER ?? Where was Peter when our Lord hung on the Cross???" Peter was NOT there! And it was horrible. Because the sight of Peter would have given Our Lord a bit of consolation." (those are not verbatim words)
So then said Fr. Roy Randolph: We should not follow Peter when he hid away from Jesus' Suffering on the cross."
(I have paraphrased the exact words...if you want the CD go to: well I guess we are not allowed to post links!

Dylan doesn't need a break. He's a big fellow. And if he isn't, he ought not to be telling adults what to believe about controverted matters. Frankly, I think your request that we give him quarter displays less respect for him than we have.

Just to clear this up, I am an adult. 18+ is the legal age of adulthood in Australia.
Thanks Eamon for your concern but John is right I am a "big fellow". I am quite happy to continue this exchange I dont need a break. Thanks anyway.

It is sinful for a catholic to attend the Una Cum Mass for two reasons.

1) It is illicit to publicly pray for a heretic or schismatic, whether declared as such or not, in the Mass.
2) The Una Cum Mass is offered in union with the False Church of Vatican II not the Catholic Church.

As proof of the first argument I quote Fr. Ferraris in his Bibliotheca

Fr. Ferraris wrote:

“The priest should be warned however that he can licitly pray in the Memento for the conversion of infidels, heretics and schismatics, since this is a private and not public prayer.”

If he can licitly pray for heretics and schismatics in a private prayer then it follows that it is illicit to mention them publicly. Because to do so would be to declare them members of the mystical body of Christ, which is a lie.

Pope Benedict XIV gives us reason for this prohibition:

Pope Benedict wrote:

“The Sacred Canons of the Church prohibit praying for excommunicates...And although there is nothing wrong with praying for their conversion, this must not be done by pronouncing their names in the solemn prayer of the Sacrifice. This observance is in accordance with the traditional discipline...”

Neither Fr. Ferraris nor Pope Benedict make mention of a declaratory sentence, and infact many of the Patriaches and schismatics they are reffering to had incurred automatic excommunication, with no declaratory sentence.

The logical conclusion from the statment of Fr. Ferraris and the explanation given by the Holy Father is that such a Mass is illicit. If the Mass is illicit then the faithful cannot attend it.

For my second argument:A catholic Mass must be offered in the person of the Church- In Persona Ecclesiae Now the Una Cum Mass is offered in union with a false Pope and this logicaly leads to union with a false Church. Why? Because the recognition of Benedict XVI as the Pope makes him the pillar of unity for the Mystical Body. Now the Mystical Body which Benedict XVI heads is not that of Christ it is "the Mystical Body of the Antichrist" (Fulton J. Sheen).

St Thomas Aquinas wrote:

“The priest at Mass indeed speaks in the prayers in the person of the Church, in whose unity he remains;

As I stated above the Una Cum Priest is offering the Mass in union with a false pope and a false Church. He is acting in the person of the heretical Vatican II Church with its false hierachy, not the Catholic Church which is the spotless bride of Christ and is currently deprived of its head.
The Conclusion? That the Una Cum Mass is not offered in the person of the Church because it declares that the Vatican II sect and Benedict XVI are legitimate and catholic. It is therefor offered outside the Church and not an option for the remnant faithful.

_________________In Christ Our Lord
Dylan

Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:58 am

Clark

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 11:34 pmPosts: 10Location: Roanoke, VA

Re: Sedevacantist Religious Orders

Clark wrote:

brogan wrote:

Please help me make this list.

The Monks of Syon Abbey in Copper Hill , VA. They are associated with Bishop McKenna O.P. and are a monastic group in the benedictine tradition . They were formed in 1962 in Lexington KY. , but once the changes occured they started traveling around the USA offering the TLM to whoever needed it and were able to return to a monastic existence in 2000. Lol I realize you didn't ask for a biography , sorry.

I would like to point out that they do not have an official position on the crisis to my knowledge. I am sorry if I mislead anyone to beleive otherwise.

Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:27 pm

John Daly

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 amPosts: 176

Re: Una Cum Mass-Illicit

Dear Dylan,

I've had enough of this junk and the gloves are coming off.

First, stop saying that priests who name Benedict are telling a lie. A lie is a statement you know isn't true. They don't know.

Second, and for the umpteenth time, no matter how sinful it is for priests to name Benedict, you have yet to show any proof that assisting laity necessarily consent to this act. Wake up, man, and answer the objections being made.

Third, instead of copying Bishop Sanborn's article, try reading what the approved theologians actually say. All valid Masses are necessarily offered by the Church. If the "una cum" Mass is not offered by the Catholic Church, it is not a valid Mass. But no one is going to claim that "una cum" Masses are not valid.

Fourth, A very renowned theologian, Fr. Maurice de la Taille, explains in great detail why and how Masses that the Church in some respect disapproves of are still offered by her, including even the Masses of heretics and schismatics (which the priests we are talking about are not). His book is called The Mystery Of Faith. It's big. An English translation exists. Read it. You'll learn a few things. It will also give you a measure of how little you knew before you started reading it. And de la Taille has no agenda.

Fifth, if a priest's dominant intention is to offer Mass exclusively in and through the religious body of which Benedict is leader, his Mass will indeed be illicit, and it will also be invalid. But no priest has that dominant intention. Catholic priests who mistakenly name Benedict have what is called a conflict of intention. they intend to offer Mass in and through the Catholic Church. They intend to offer Mass in union with Benedict. In reality they cannot do both. Their primary intention predominates. Like when a man has the intention to marry his fiancée and he has the intention to marry a lady whose teeth and hair-colour are natural. He has made a mistake about his wife, but he is married to her anyway.

I'll leave Mr Lane to put in context the quotations you supply from theologians you have never read, if he thinks it worthwhile.

And if you come back on this, will you for Christ's sake (that is not an oath) remember that you are a schoolboy and cease laying down the law before men like Mr Lane of whose knowledge and reading on this topic you have not 1%.

Souls may be at stake: it is wise to proportionate one's confidence to the degree of one's knowledge.

John Daly

Last edited by John Daly on Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:52 pm

Tommy Short

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pmPosts: 84Location: USA

I'll leave Mr Lane to put in context the quotations you supply from theologians you have never read, if he thinks it worthwhile.

And if you come back on this, will you for Christ's sake (that is not an oath) remember that you are a schoolboy and cease laying down the law before men like Mr Lane of whose knowledge and reading on this topic you have not 1%.

Souls may be at stake: it is wise to proportionate one's confidence to the degree of one's knowledge.

John Daly

I am certain that my response to John will not be well received, and I question my own judgment in this regard. As a 47 year old man with 9 kids and 5 grandkids, a sede since 1988, I feel I have earned the right; I am no schoolboy.

It is hard for me to understand why you take Dylan to task in such an abrubt manner. You call him a "schoolboy," in a derogatory manner, suggesting that by this acclamation he has no business making claims before John Lane, and I suppose you either. Now, if you are going to open this forum to all, including the youth, which is why you counseled me to take care in choosing topics, than I suggest that you show patience and realize you are dealing with folks less experienced and less mature. If this is an issue, I suggest that "schoolboys," not be allowed to post but simply observe. It seems like we want to have our cake and eat it too, or has he struck a nerve. Recognizing that Dylan took most of his comments from Father Sanborn, does not mean he did not make some interesting points, nor does it mean he "has not read the the theologians he quotes." Since, a few posts ago on this thread John, you said you understood his position because you held it yourself, presumbably not long ago, I was wondering if there were souls at stake then when you argued the other side of the coin? Was your confidence proportionate to your knowledge? Let us not be so hasty to anger and ridicule, while excusing ourselves. There are tactful ways to instruct both the young and your peers without making them fall to their heels and fear to make a post that may be in error. I assume good intentions from all on this list, and I also assume that the purpose of these conversations is to find the truth, during a period of such error.

I am a big boy John, and I am prepared to assume whatever consequences await me from your keyboard. This post was meant in charity, I can only hope that is how it is taken. Those who know me Know this to be true. Working out one's salvation has never been more difficult.

In Christ,

Tommy Short

Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:02 pm

John Daly

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 amPosts: 176

Tommy

Thanks for the gentle rebuke. Have no fear: I have no intention of biting your head off! Let me explain.

I have no objection to Dylan putting his arguments no matter where he has got them from. In fact I want him to.

Nor do I have any objection to his being young.

But I object pretty violently to a person of his age laying down the law with the tone of total certainty on this sort of subject.

You rightly say that you are no schoolboy. Nonetheless you express yourself in every post with politeness, a degree of caution, often a humble admission that you may be missing something. That is correct and normal. It should be all the more normal from someone like Dylan.

I try to do the same myself. I have never stated here or elsewhere that it is lawful to go to "una cum" Masses. Nor have I ever tried to persuade anyone to go to one. I have said I am open to proofs. But I have pointed out what to me are big holes in the arguments that are being offered. Even then I have no problem whatever with those who in conscience find it impossible to go to such Masses. But I am very concerned when I see someone trying to impose his state of conscience on others by arguments that I can see to be flawed presented in the hectoring tone of a man who knows his subject inside out.

Even now I don't go round doing that, and I'm quite sure I didn't talk like that when I was seventeen or eighteen to men twice my age and fifty times as learned.

There are many forums which give folk bad habits of not weighing what they say. John Lane has opened this forum in full awareness of the risks and perfectly determined that anyone can present thoughts and arguments but not set up as teacher unless he can show the requisite qualifications. Error, fanaticism, wildly overstating one's case, endangering that fragile and precious thing the integrity of the human conscience are not admissible. And if that proves to be unpoliceable, John will close the forum rather than take responsibility for the harmful results.

It is very easy to present a case, however wrong-headed. Refutation is more demanding. Moderators are already exhausted on this forum trying to maintain peace and order. The very easiest solution if the forum is to continue is to express opinions with diffidence.

If you say: "Look, here are some arguments which seem to me to have some weight," no one is going to object. If you say, "This is the way it is, what you're doing is a mortal sin, no doubt about it..." you are entering a minefield unless you are very competent in moral theology.

This polite diffidence is all the more imperative from the younger towards the elder, from the laity towards the clergy, from the less learned towards the more learned and so forth.

But you know that, Tommy. You practise it like a Christian gentleman. And your gentle Christian heart felt sorry for a young lad being jumped on. Yet a lady I know who is just as kind-hearted mailed me expressly to congratulate me on giving Dylan a sharp rap over the knuckles - not because of what he says but because of how he says it. She could see he needed it.

Having said that, he really doesn't seem to be making much effort to understand what John Lane and I have said to him either. For debate to be productive each side should make a serious effort to understand why the other thinks what it thinks. I took the hard line on this question for some twenty years and that is still the line I follow in practice. I understand very well those who think as Dylan does. But I have yet to see a true proof.

And it is a fact that the closest analogies that I have found in the lives of the saints seem rather favourable to the milder view.

God bless!

John

Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:48 pm

Tommy Short

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pmPosts: 84Location: USA

Dear John,

I appreciate the explanation and the good intentions. Perhaps we might expect great things from this exchange; on our part and more specifically on our young friends. My dad used to tell me as a child that the mark of a real man was in his strength to know his weaknesses.

In Christ,

Tommy Short

Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:06 pm

Eamon Shea

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 amPosts: 72Location: USA

John Daly wrote:

Quote:

Although we may not utter a single word with our mouths while at Mass, do we not utter each and every one with our hearts, in union with the man who is uttering them with his mouth?

Eamon, may I question this claim? Or rather ask you to prove that it is true?

The priest at Mass uses the Church's approved liturgy and we can safely associate ourselves with every word of it. But he also includes (or omits) the name of a bishop and a pope, the persons living and dead for whom he wishes to pray, and (mentally) the intention for which he is offering the Mass; These points are inaudible. Indeed at High Mass the rubrics require the Master of Ceremonies to withdraw so that he does not hear the intentions of the Mementos. What is the evidence that the faithful by the fact of assisting at a Mass necessarily associate themselves with and share these prayers, intentions, recognitions?

Mr. Daly,

I hope and trust you are well. I do not know if you watch football, but I saw England won their opening match (although they need to get it together if they desire to advance very far in the WC). To all Aussie football fans, I wish your country well in its WC debut. Brazil await in the second match, if I recall, which is a tall order indeed.

I believe we are all agreed that those who assist - whether layman or cleric, whether in the pew or sanctuary - are co-offerers at Holy Mass. There is normally only one sacrificing priest, but there are many co-offerers of the Mass (some of whom are not even present), as it is the supreme public prayer of Holy Church.

We are likewise agreed that, in the present-day Latin rite anyway, the prayers of the sacred canon are largely inaudible, even to the servers (depending on the particular priest's voice). Does this make these prayers "private" prayers? Imo, no, but we will touch upon that more, I am sure. As an aside, the once-a-year public offering in the OT times could not even be seen by anyone other than the High Priest, as it was hidden beind the veil. I believe we would all agree that this prayer was not private, although it was unseen - but this is a digression.

What are the words of the prayer in question, namely the Te igitur? "Wherefore, we humbly pray...we offer up to Thee...etc" Now, it would seem strange to speak in the first person plural if the priest is speaking only for himself in this place (that is, if the fact that it is a priestly action meant we had no part in it). Again, I understand it is inaudible (to almost everyone, except perhaps the servers), but I maintain that audible and public are not synonymous in this context. There is a sacramental Priesthood (large letter 'P'), to be sure, but there is also a priesthood (small letter 'p') of all believers. We are all priests in this sense, and we come to the public worship of Holy Church that we may co-offer the Holy Sacrifice.

If I am present at the Holy Sacrifice in order to act as a co-offerer (indeed, that is expressly why we go to Mass), and if the prayers being offered are public prayers, it would seem that, although my lips may move not at all, I am co-offering the public prayers said by the Priest - or rather, I am praying with the Priest. Your thoughts to the contrary, if any, are most welcome.

I realize there has been much digression in this thread, which is somewhat normal on a forum (as it is not just a simple conversation among two or three men, but is 'enterable' by all). Indeed, this thread started as something totally different than it has become, complete with an entirely different topic.

Despite all digressions (including those I have caused or played a part in), my hope is that we can address the main points presented by both sides.

As a final note, I noticed you recommended The Mystery of Faith by Maurice de la Taille, S.J. to Dylan. On page 316, Book II, we read:

"This was all the more reasonable, because priests gradually became accustomed to mention no living person in these public suffrages of the Church, except such as could be reckoned among those with whom he was considered to be offering the sacrifice."

On page 317 of the same volume we find these words: "The same is clear from the actual formula found in our own Roman Church ... where the celebrant says: 'WE OFFER ... together with our Pope N. and our Bishop N. (and our king N.) and with all orthodox worshippers of the Catholic and apostolic faith.' "

The capitalization and the elipsis (...) within his own quotation of the prayer are in de la Taille's original text. The main idea is the oblation, as opposed to intercession, although this text will likely come into play later in our discussion.

_________________"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."

I am going to leave the first part of your post for later, you should re-read mine and see I and others such as Mr.Shea have already answered many of your objections. However some things cannot be let slide.

John Daly wrote:

I'll leave Mr Lane to put in context the quotations you supply from theologians you have never read, if he thinks it worthwhile.

You do that a lot John. Are you sure that I have never read the works of the theologians on such matters? What are you basing this on? It is true I decided to use Fr.Sanborns article as a foundation for this particular post because I knew it contained logical arguments and good quotes from some noted authorities. I am not sure if you have learnt off by heart the works of theologians, I for one have not but I take no shame in reffering to the works of Fr.Sanborn and others who rely upon the teachings of the Church.

John Daly wrote:

And if you come back on this, will you for Christ's sake (that is not an oath) remember that you are a schoolboy and cease laying down the law before men like Mr Lane of whose knowledge and reading on this topic you have not 1%.

If I have come to the conclusion that to assist at an Una Cum Mass is a sin then I will proudly state and defend that idea. Its not "laying down the law" its simply laying down my opinion which is that its illicit to assist at an Una Cum Mass. Mr. Lane is much more educated then me on such topics but that does not make him infallible. I am happy to read Mr. Lanes opinions. I know that I am not infallible either but that does not mean I cannot write with confidence it what I believe.

John Daly wrote:

Souls may be at stake: it is wise to proportionate one's confidence to the degree of one's knowledge.

Will you stop bragging about your knowledge. All your posts have been made in an authorative manner as if your better then everyone else. Respect must be earnt not demanded. If you have a problem with the way I present my arguments then please gently rebuke me with charity instead of jumping down my throat and being derogatory and unchristian by calling me a "schoolboy" as if I am not entitled to an opinion or that that opinion is inferior to yours.
Next time I suggest that you spend your time replying to my arguments instead of admonishing me

P.S. Mr. Daly I may be wrong but this seems to be going onto a personal level. Strange however because you attend a "sedevacantist" Mass while Mr. Lane attends an Una Cum Mass. And yet Mr. Lanes posts are a delight to read and written in charity. Yours however are derogatory and smack of superiority.
I will include you in my prayer intentions.

_________________In Christ Our Lord
Dylan

Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:28 am

Cam

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:13 amPosts: 41

Eamon Shea wrote:

To all Aussie football fans, I wish your country well in its WC debut.

Eamon,

It's actually the second time that the Aussies are in the World Cup. Could you imagine how different the state of the Church would be if Catholics had the same zeal for their faith as football fans! I guess it comes down to the problem of Naturalism...I'm currently reading Fr. Denis Fahey!

God Bless

Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:02 am

Simplicius

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:18 amPosts: 19

Dear Dylan,

I am more interested in your answers to the first part of Mr Daly's post (and Mr Shea's answers to Mr. Lane's and Mr Daly's previous posts), as these are what are pertinent to the thread. These are the things that one "cannot let slide", as you say, if one is interested in debating correctly.

If you have read the theologians on such matters, then please quote them and the reference. Bp Sanborn is not enough when some of the very assertions he makes are precisely what are under dispute.

You have come to a conclusion that attendance at an "una cum" Mass is sinful but you have not proved this. Of course you must follow your conscience, but please don't imply that anyone else is bound to follow your opinion. I find this offensive. And it is not in keeping with the practice of the saints. St. Thomas More lost his life rather than sign the Oath of Supremacy in the year 1534. Never once during his incarceration did he say that others were bound by his conscience, nor did he advise them to follow his actions. He was completely silent on the point and he was renowned for being the smartest man in England at the time.

There is a huge difference between "bragging about your knowledge", a charge you disrespectfully lay upon Mr Daly, and pitting this same knowledge against someone who, in a public forum, could influence others of his unresearched, yet confident opinion. An opinion which, if embraced by others, may have dire consequences for them. It is an act of charity on the part of Mr Daly, and I commend him for it.

I hope this is helpful and that you will take it in the spirit of charity in which it is offered.

Simplicius

Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:37 am

brogan

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 amPosts: 56

Eamon Shea wrote:

What are the words of the prayer in question, namely the Te igitur? "Wherefore, we humbly pray...we offer up to Thee...etc" Now, it would seem strange to speak in the first person plural if the priest is speaking only for himself in this place (that is, if the fact that it is a priestly action meant we had no part in it). Again, I understand it is inaudible (to almost everyone, except perhaps the servers), but I maintain that audible and public are not synonymous in this context.

Would a Priest not be right to speak in the Pluralis Majestatis while offering the Mass. I know it is usually the Pope or sometimes Bishops and not non-bishop priests who usually employ the "royal we" but couldn't there be a difference when speaking in the Mass? When standing in persona Christi isn't he royality?

Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:56 am

Linda

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:34 pmPosts: 89Location: Griffin, GA

WFTS

Lance,
Here is the link for the Fr. Roy Randolph CDs. There are also excellent interviews with Fr. WilliamJenkins and Bp. Clarence Kelly SSPV. I ordered their Stations of the Cross CD narriated by Fr. Jenkins.(really fine)!
http://www.wftsradio.com/

_________________"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:00 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Respect and "rights"

Dear Dylan,

I have reflected on this mini-controversy and it seems to me that you are under a number of illusions. The first is that you have some kind of right to espouse your opinion here. That is not right. Please permit me to disabuse you of any such notion, and at the same time, any others who may share it.

When you post something to this forum you are requesting that I publish your text for you. That is what your act of hitting “Submit” signifies. That is what is really happening. I am morally responsible for the publication of your text, and I take that responsibility seriously. Indeed, if I cannot manage to prevent things being published which I think it would be sinful for me to publish, I will simply close down the forum.

So, if you view the matter from that point of view, which is the true perspective, you will appreciate that you have no rights except the rights inseparable from your divinely imposed obligations, for it is our obligations which give rise to our rights, as the holy doctors teach.

You have no obligation whatsoever to post anything on these forums. Therefore you have no right to do so. Whatever you post is a privilege granted by me, and under condition that I take responsibility before God for it.

So, I ask you to have mercy on me by taking this seriously, reflecting gravely on each post before hitting that “Submit” button, and thus lightening my burden and that of the moderators.

The second point is best introduced by your own comment:

Dylan Byrne wrote:

However some things cannot be let slide.

I don’t know why you couldn’t let this slide. Frankly, you should have. Even if Mr. Daly was entirely wrong in his approach, you could well have endeavoured to set a better example. And now I find myself virtually forced to address it, when I might have let it slide myself.

Dylan, what Mr. Daly said was exactly right. You are guilty of impertinence. And now you add to it by challenging Mr. Daly to prove that you have not read the theologians. Your Catholic soul will not bear the lie that you have read the theologians, so you do not claim it – instead, you challenge Mr. Daly by asking how he could know that you have not read them. This is a tactic which is unworthy of a Catholic. Remember Our Blessed Redeemer’s words, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile.”

Now, a few more comments and I hope that we can leave this behind.

Dylan Byrne wrote:

If I have come to the conclusion that to assist at an Una Cum Mass is a sin then I will proudly state and defend that idea.

Actually, you will do so humbly, or not at all.

Dylan Byrne wrote:

Its not "laying down the law" its simply laying down my opinion which is that its illicit to assist at an Una Cum Mass.

Dylan, it does not seem to have struck home what a serious thing you are about here. Please permit me to put it into sharp relief for you:

What if some poor soul believes you? What if he is reading you, and believes that you have studied and laboured, and that your confidence is not borrowed, but is really something you are entitled to possess? And what if that soul subsequently becomes convinced and ceases assisting at Holy Mass? You will be responsible for that, Dylan.

Did you think about that, Dylan, or were you perhaps more interested in the praise of those who admire you for taking on big, strong, Mr. Daly?

If, on the other hand, you were without guile, you would approach this along something like the following lines.

“I am only a young fellow and I have been reading Bishop Sanborn’s article on this matter, and he seems to me to have good arguments. Therefore I am convinced that his conclusion is right – we ought not to assist at such Masses.”

That is actually the truth, is it not? You haven’t read the theologians. You haven’t a real basis for the confidence you portray, except the confidence you borrow from men you trust more than yourself. And there is nothing wrong with believing Bishop Sanborn or any other superior you may become convinced knows more than you. Nothing wrong at all. The fault is in the disingenuousness which disguises the reality.

Dylan, you are not alone in this fault. The Internet is flooded with such posturing by men with vastly more experience of life and therefore with far less excuse for it. I was certainly guilty of it myself for many years, and perhaps I still am. I try to overcome the danger that I am still prone to it by speaking diffidently. And the farther I get from a subject that I have directly studied in considerable effort, the more diffidently I try to express myself. It is not easy, but it is not optional, either. Please learn from one who has made all the mistakes you are making, and listen to Mr. Daly, who is old enough to be your father; he is in his charity taking time from his large family and other duties, as well as his spare time, to give you some attention; and is one of the most brilliant minds I have ever known, and I have known a few.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:33 pm

brogan

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 amPosts: 56

Re: Respect and "rights"

John Lane wrote:

Dear Dylan,

Dylan, what Mr. Daly said was exactly right. You are guilty of impertinence. And now you add to it by challenging Mr. Daly to prove that you have not read the theologians. Your Catholic soul will not bear the lie that you have read the theologians, so you do not claim it – instead, you challenge Mr. Daly by asking how he could know that you have not read them. This is a tactic which is unworthy of a Catholic. Remember Our Blessed Redeemer’s words, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile.”

If I understand your line on this, Dylan's not having read the theologians he is quoting would be brought up for the purpose of discrediting him in front of those who might believe that he has justified belief in these matters. This is done merely to safeguard those who are reading from being led astray by someone who is presenting himself in an overly confident manner.

We don't need to assume that the viewing audiance is so fragile do we?

Bishop Sanborn has read the theologians and has still come to these conclussions. Bringing up whether or not Dylan has read these theologians is irrelavent. Someone of learning and goodwill can read these theologians and still come to the conclussion that you object to. If he has misunderstood Sanborns writting that is another matter. If Sanborn has misunderstood the theologians that is yet another. Yet his not having read the theologians Sanborn quotes is not relavent, unless of course Sanborn has not even read them, which I highly doubt.

If these errant veiws are systematically refuted, instead of the man expressing these veiws being discredited, the veiwing audiance will be in no danger of scandel or otherwise being led astray. If they were unable to see past their own noses they probably wouldn't be reading this forum in the first place.

Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:32 pm

John Daly

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 amPosts: 176

Dear Brogan,

Your post to Mr Lane gives me the opportunity to correct the only one of Dylan's misapprehensions that matters to me: I was not suggesting that Bishop Sanborn was liable to fake his authorities.

But it certainly does make a difference whether a man has just read passages quoted by Bishop Sanborn or whether he has read whole books of theology. Context and background knowledge can be very important.

I wrote to Tommy Short:

Quote:

If you say: "Look, here are some arguments which seem to me to have some weight," no one is going to object. If you say, "This is the way it is, what you're doing is a mortal sin, no doubt about it..." you are entering a minefield unless you are very competent in moral theology.

This polite diffidence is all the more imperative from the younger towards the elder, from the laity towards the clergy, from the less learned towards the more learned and so forth.

That is a lesson in ordinary politeness and I'd be surprised if anyone seriously questioned the facts that it is important, correctly stated and was not being respected by Dylan.

I don't think there were any ulterior motives behind the rebukes Dylan received.

JSD

Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:05 pm

Zelie

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:42 pmPosts: 10

The issue at hand

Blessed are the peacemakers!

And to coin a phrase, with a twist, "Let the games resume!"

Z.

Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:14 pm

Eamon Shea

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 amPosts: 72Location: USA

Cam wrote:

It's actually the second time that the Aussies are in the World Cup. Could you imagine how different the state of the Church would be if Catholics had the same zeal for their faith as football fans! I guess it comes down to the problem of Naturalism...I'm currently reading Fr. Denis Fahey!

Thanks for the correction - I heard a comment the other day in passing, and got my info wrong.

I saw most of the match, and they went wild at the end, getting 3 goals in 8 minutes - and the goal they gave up should have been disallowed. I missed most of the USA match, but that is apparently not such a bad thing.

Yes, naturalism runs the show, and Fr. Fahey is one of the best authors for us to read in these days of confusion - he always sets our heads straight.

_________________"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."

Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:20 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Respect and "rights"

brogan wrote:

If I understand your line on this, Dylan's not having read the theologians he is quoting would be brought up for the purpose of discrediting him in front of those who might believe that he has justified belief in these matters. This is done merely to safeguard those who are reading from being led astray by someone who is presenting himself in an overly confident manner.

Dear Brogan,

No, there are any number of reasons for insisting on honesty and politeness, but another is that it is the best way to get Dylan to take this subject seriously, which he has not so far done. If he can be made to confront what he up to, frankly, he may ask himself the kinds of questions he needs to ask, and he may cease ignoring Mr. Daly's objections and actually engage in the debate.

I have said this already, but I'll say it again. If you don't care about (for example) Mr. Daly's objections, why are you even here? Could it be that you perceive an opportunity to publish your views to the kind of audience that might be receptive to them? In other words, aren't you really using this forum as a publishing system for your own ideas? And the answer can only be "yes."

Now, did anybody have any evidence that the faithful in the pews are deemed to agree with whatever names the priest mentions in the Canon of the Mass?

And while you are at it, could somebody please explain why this so-called massive issue never got noticed all those other times when a heretic or schismatic was named in the Canon by priests who were awaiting the judgement of the Church? One would think that this was the second century and these things are new, the way they are discussed in a vacuum isolated from history.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:43 pm

Tommy Short

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pmPosts: 84Location: USA

"And while you are at it, could somebody please explain why this so-called massive issue never got noticed all those other times when a heretic or schismatic was named in the Canon by priests who were awaiting the judgement of the Church? One would think that this was the second century and these things are new, the way they are discussed in a vacuum isolated from history."

I understand your point John. Do you think that perhaps because of the extraordinary amount of time involved and the fact that as sedevacantists we almost exclusively hang our hats on the no-pope issue, could be a reason that it is a large issue today, but maybe not in the past. I confess that my (una cum) philosophy rests on the notion that there is a communion with those mentioned in the una cum, albeit this is a personal matter of my own conscience, as I think I am beginning to see.

Tommy

Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:03 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Tommy Short wrote:

I understand your point John. Do you think that perhaps because of the extraordinary amount of time involved and the fact that as sedevacantists we almost exclusively hang our hats on the no-pope issue, could be a reason that it is a large issue today, but maybe not in the past. I confess that my (una cum) philosophy rests on the notion that there is a communion with those mentioned in the una cum, albeit this is a personal matter of my own conscience, as I think I am beginning to see.

I think you may be onto something there. I have often though that we are in danger of spending too much time on the "pope" issue to the exclusion of other equally vital matters, and even at the cost of proper attention to immediate duties (I have just interrupted this to attend to a crying baby...).

There is no doubt in my mind that the "pope issue" can be a distorter of perspective. But it is equally true that if one is aware of the teaching of the Church regarding her own indefectibility and infallibility, it is impossible to repose peacefully in the sedeplenist position. As with all things, it is a question of balance.

I certainly think that the simple fellow in the (SSPX) pew who hasn't thought about these things, and simply does his duties as he sees them, may be on a much higher plane of holiness than nearly all sedevacantists. Certainly higher than me. I have spent massive amounts of my time as a traditional Catholic arguing and discussing, when I could have been meditating on the truths of the Gospel, or even sitting silently adoring Our Loving Redeemer in the Blessed Sacrament.

But this is all in a very real sense accidental. Consider this. Does it offend God more that many of His baptised doubt or deny the truth of the Real Presence, or that most men think Benedict is pope even though he isn't? Which truth has God ensured has been promulgated to the entire world? Which truth does He therefore care more about?

Do not mistake me - the truth that Benedict is not pope is a vital truth, and pregnant of the most serious consequences. But it will not, in itself, affect membership in the Church. Doubting the Real Presence, or any other truth of the Gospel sufficiently proposed to us by Holy Mother Church, will most certainly affect our status as Catholics, and thus immediately and directly put us on the path to perdition. Which truth does God wish us to spend our time contemplating?

Is the SSPX priest who says, "Do not worry about things that are beyond you - you have duties to perform and catechism to learn," really so far off the mark?

I sum it up as follows. The fact that Benedict is not and cannot be pope is a very useful fact to know, because it renders one safe from his depredations. But if we neglect duty, or fail to advance in the spiritual life, because we waste our time fretting over it, or if we absent ourselves from the sacraments because we have gotten ourselves all twisted up so that we think it legitimate and even praiseworthy (or worse, compulsory!) to avoid communion in the sacraments with fellow Catholics, because of a mistake the priest makes, then whatever safety we have gained by avoiding Benedict we make of little account by our own folly.

Now, wouldn't that suit the Father of Lies?

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:04 am

Tommy Short

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:41 pmPosts: 84Location: USA

Thanks for the conversation John; truly edifying. If only we could all sit with a pint or two and discuss these issues on a regular basis.

Your advice has been noted and thankyou for delivering it in charity. However Mr. Daly I am asking you not to refer to me as a "schoolboy" again or in any other way be derogatory.
I have not read the writtings of the theologians. However when I came to the sedevacantist point of view the Una Cum question was one that I needed to decide upon. I read the writtings from people in favour of attending an Una Cum Mass (the Dimond Brothers, John Lane etc.) and those opposed (Bp.Sanborn and Bp.Dolan). I also emailed or spoke to other priests to hear their opinion, especialy Fr. Cekada and some priests of CMRI.
After studying both cases I came to the private conclusion that it was wrong to attend the Una Cum Mass and I believe that the writtings and arguments of Bp. Sanborn and Co. are more logical then those of the Dimond Brothers and Co. This is in no way meant to be an insult Mr. Lane, your article was very good and very persuasive, just not as much so as Bp.Sanborns in my humble opinion. After that I stopped attending SSPX Mass in Hampton at Our Lady of Perpetual Succour and simply read from my missal, prayed the rosary and listened to a pre-recorded sermon. This has been the path that at least half the sedevacantists in Australia and New Zealand have chosen. Ofcourse its very possible that I am incorrect and that sedevacantists are entitled to go to the Una Cum Mass.
Mr. Lane asked whether going to an Una Cum Mass was consenting to Benedict XVI being named in the canon. Here is an extract from Bp.Sanborns article which is sufficient enough for me:

His Excellency Bishop Sanborn wrote:

Objection IV. The lay people can attend the una cum Mass without necessarily consenting to the una cumphrase.

Answer. Active participation in worship is consent to the worship, and one is presumed to consent to everything which is part of the worship. The name of Benedict XVi in the Mass is exactly the same thing as the presence of Benedict XVI in the sanctuary as pope. It is a sign, a declaration of ecclesial communion. Such external and public signs deserve external and public disapproval; active participation gives external consent. Furthermore, the presence of Benedict XVI's name as pope, as principle of unity of the Church, places the entire act of worship in the schismatic category, and not just the little phrase, since it places the entire act of worship outside the Church. But outside the Church there is no salvation.

*The name of John Paul II was changed to Benedict XVI in the extract from Bp. Sanborns article.

_________________In Christ Our Lord
Dylan

Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:13 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Tommy Short wrote:

Thanks for the conversation John; truly edifying. If only we could all sit with a pint or two and discuss these issues on a regular basis.

Ah, yes, if only!

Feel free to drop in to my place any time, though, Tommy.

Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:32 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Schoolboy!?!

Dear Dylan,

Thank you for answering Mr. Daly's question. I will leave it to him to discuss the further, but a couple of comments below.

Dylan Byrne wrote:

This is in no way meant to be an insult Mr. Lane, your article was very good and very persuasive, just not as much so as Bp.Sanborns in my humble opinion.

No problem. It is not an insult even if nobody finds my articles persuasive. Far from it.

Dylan Byrne wrote:

After that I stopped attending SSPX Mass in Hampton at Our Lady of Perpetual Succour and simply read from my missal, prayed the rosary and listened to a pre-recorded sermon. This has been the path that at least half the sedevacantists in Australia and New Zealand have chosen.

True. A few dozen of us have taken that path. Tragic, also. It also happens to be the most powerful argument one could imagine for ensuring that the average pew-attendee at the SSPX Mass will never look seriously at our position. This is not essential - it is only accidental. But it's true.

Dylan Byrne wrote:

Here is an extract from Bp.Sanborns article which is sufficient enough for me:...

I thought you might eventually quote that or something like it. I'll be interested to see what Mr. Daly has to offer, but in the mean time you might like to glance through Bishop Sanborn's article and see if you can spot where he proved the assertions in your quote. And if you have trouble finding those proofs, don't stress - I couldn't find them either, and I looked really, really hard.

Perhaps the reason he didn't attempt to prove those claims was because they are entirely obvious. So obvious that no sedevacantist noticed them for thirty years.

I'm not just being cheeky - these points are serious considerations as well as amusing ones.

True. A few dozen of us have taken that path. Tragic, also. It also happens to be the most powerful argument one could imagine for ensuring that the average pew-attendee at the SSPX Mass will never look seriously at our position. This is not essential - it is only accidental. But it's true.

Funny you mention that, around two years ago when I did attend the SSPX Mass and when I was delving into sedevacantism, I must have been around 16 going on 17, I overheard a conversation (and yes I, nor anyone else in the Church hall could help over-hearing it, these men involved were quite renound for laughing jovialy and speaking loudly after Mass.)"To right, like the sedes!""started in American they did, with some Fr.Kelly bloke""There aint many of them in Australia are there?""Ahh theres a few, specialy in Perth, theres that John Lane guy!""Ahh him, yeah ya know he didn't even go to Mass for a while somethin bout una cum!""Its not that they dont got good arguments, its just to a certain extent we dont even need a pope""Yeah we got the deposit like Father says".

This little conversation illustrates a lot. One of the men says that we have good arguments but it seems he has never bothered to research them. Like you said a few posts ago John, while the pope question is of vital importance, maybe the simple fellow in the pew is doing a better job at sanctifying himself then we are. Just by learning his doctrine and spending time with Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.So I guess to a certain extent you are right, our alienation from those catholics who have failed to reject Benedict XVI may have given them some kind of indifference to the question. But then again is an evil justified even if it does yield some good fruits?

John Lane wrote:

I thought you might eventually quote that or something like it. I'll be interested to see what Mr. Daly has to offer, but in the mean time you might like to glance through Bishop Sanborn's article and see if you can spot where he proved the assertions in your quote. And if you have trouble finding those proofs, don't stress - I couldn't find them either, and I looked really, really hard.

Yes ha ha very funny! However His Excellency is right, such external and public signs of union with a false pope deserve external and public signs of disapproval. Active participation does give external consent.

* Forgive the spelling and vulgar tone of the transcript above. I wanted it to be as authentic as possible

By the way Mr.Lane, I know that recently a CMRI priest visited Perth for a Mass circuit, do you attend these "mission" Masses? Sadly he flew straight to Fiji without coming to Victoria.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum